1/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 322

VOL. 322, JANUARY 18, 2000 17

Ocampo vs. Office of the Ombudsman
*
G.R. No. 114683. January 18, 2000.

JESUS C. OCAMPO, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE

OMBUDSMAN and MAXIMO ECLIPSE, respondents.

Remedial Law; Evidence; Considering the difference in the quantum of

evidence, as well as the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in
criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in
one should not necessarily be binding on the other.—The dismissal of the
criminal case will not foreclose administrative action filed against petitioner
or give him a clean bill of health in all respects. The Regional Trial Court, in
dismissing the criminal complaint, was simply saying that the prosecution
was unable to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, a
condition sine qua non for conviction. The lack or absence of proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean an absence of any evidence whatsoever for
there is another class of evidence which, though insufficient to establish
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, is adequate in civil cases; this is
preponderance of evidence. Then too, there is the “substantial evidence”
rule in administrative proceedings which merely requires such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. Thus, considering the difference in the quantum of evidence, as
well as the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and
administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not
necessarily be binding on the other.
Same; Same; Constitutional Law; Due Process; In administrative
proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly
applied; Administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process
in its strict judicial sense.—The essence of due process is an opportunity to
be heard. One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and
perhaps even many times more creditably and practicable than oral
argument, through pleadings. In administrative proceedings, moreover,
technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied;
administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its
strict judicial sense.

________________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001683ffeaa7fc46eca65003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
1/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 322

* SECOND DIVISION.

18

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ocampo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Same; Same; Same; Same; A party who chooses not to avail of the
opportunity to answer the charges cannot complain of a denial of due
process.—Petitioner’s failure to present evidence is solely of his own
making and cannot escape his own remissness by passing the blame on the
graft investigator. While the respondent OMBUDSMAN has shown
forebearance, petitioner has not displayed corresponding vigilance. He
therefore cannot validly claim that his right to due process was violated. We
need only to reiterate that a party who chooses not to avail of the
opportunity to answer the charges cannot complain of a denial of due
process.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

Ombudsman.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

L. Emmanuel B. Canilao for petitioner.
The Government Corporate Counsel for private respondent.

BUENA, J.:

This petition for certiorari seeks to nullify the Resolutions of the1

Ombudsman in OMB-Adm-0-92-0020
2
dated November 18, 1993
and February 28, 1994 which dismissed petitioner from the service,
with forfeiture of benefits and special perpetual disqualification to
hold office in the government or any government-owned or
controlled corporation, and which denied the motion for
reconsideration thereof, respectively.
The facts are as follows:
Petitioner is the Training Coordinator of NIACONSULT, INC., a
subsidiary of the National Irrigation Administration.
On March 21, 1988, K.N. Paudel of the Agricultural
Development Bank of Nepal (ADBN) wrote a letter to NIACON-

________________

1 Annex F, pp. 61-66, Rollo.

2 Annex H, pp. 73-75, Id.

19

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001683ffeaa7fc46eca65003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
1/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 322

VOL. 322, JANUARY 18, 2000 19

Ocampo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

SULT requesting a training

3
proposal on small-scale community
irrigation development.
On November 17, 1988, petitioner as the training coordinator of4
the NIACONSULT, sent a letter-proposal requested by ABDN.
Another letter was sent by petitioner on January 31, 1989 to Dr.
Peiter Roeloffs of ADBN confirming the availability of
NIACONSULT to conduct the training program and formally
requesting
5
advance payment of thirty (30%) percent of the training
fees in the amount of US $9,600.00 or P204,960.00.
NIACONSULT conducted the training program 6for six Nepalese
Junior Engineers from February 6 to March 7, 1989. ADBN, thru its
representative, Deutsche Gesselschaft Technische Zusummenarbeit
(GTZ) Gmbh Technical Coopera-tion of the Federal Republic of
Germany paid to the petitioner the agreed 7
training fee in two
installments of P61,488.00 and P143,472.00.

________________

3 Rollo, pp. 31-33.

4 Rollo, pp. 34-42.
5 Id., p. 43.
6 Id., p. 44.
7 See pp. 45-50.

1) GTZ Philippine Voucher No. 5166 signed by Mr. Je-sus C. Ocampo,

indicating that he received P61,488.00 as 30% deposit for the training
2) GTZ Philippine Check No. 0227431 for P61,488.00 payable to the Order of
Mr. Jesus C. Ocampo
3) NIACONSULT, Inc. Official Receipt No. 1071 acknowledging payment of
P61,488.00
4) GTZ Voucher no. 5822 signed by Mr. Jesus C. Ocampo showing that he
received P143,472.00 as final payment
5) GTZ Check No.633554 for P143,472.00 payable to the Order of Mr. Jesus C.
Ocampo
6) NIACONSULT, Inc. Official Receipt No. 1095 acknowledging payment of
P143,472.00.

20

20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ocampo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

On April 1, 1991, NIACONSULT, through its president, Wilfredo S.

Tiongco, wrote a letter to petitioner demanding the turn-over of the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001683ffeaa7fc46eca65003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
1/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 322

total training
8
fee paid by ADBN which petitioner personally
received. Despite receipt of the letter, petitioner failed to remit the
said amount prompting NIACONSULT through its president,
Maximino Eclipse, to file an administrative case before respondent
OMBUDSMAN 9
for serious misconduct and/or fraud or willful
breach of trust.
Finding enough basis to proceed with the administrative case, the
Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the 10respondent
OMBUDSMAN, on February 17, 1992, issued an order requiring
petitioner to file his counter-affidavit within ten (10) days from
receipt with a caveat that failure to file the same would be deemed a
waiver of his right to present evidence. Despite notice, petitioner
failed to comply with the said order.
A year later, or on11 March 17, 1993, respondent OMBUDSMAN
issued another order giving petitioner another chance to file his
counter-affidavit and controverting evidence. Again, petitioner
failed. Thus, on April 14, 1993, private respondent was required to
appear before
12
the OMBUDSMAN to present evidence to support its
complaint.
Thereafter, on November 18, 1993, respondent OMBUDSMAN
issued the assailed Resolution, the decretal portion of which reads:

“Withal, for such dishonesty, untrustworthiness, and conduct prejudicial to

the service as established by overwhelming evidences, it is respectfully
recommended that respondent Jesus C. Ocampo be discharged from the
service, with forfeiture of benefits and special perpetual disqualification to
hold office in the government or any government-owned or controlled
corporation; without prejudice to

________________

8 Id., p. 134.
9 Annex B, pp. 25-30, Rollo.
10 Annex C, p. 57, Id.
11 Annex D, p. 59, Id.
12 Annex E, p. 60, Id.

21

VOL. 322, JANUARY 18, 2000 21

Ocampo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

any civil action NIACONSULT, Inc., may institute to recover the amount so
retained by the respondent.
13
SO ORDERED.”

On February 16, 1994 petitioner moved for reconsideration and to

re-open the case claiming that he was denied due process in that the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001683ffeaa7fc46eca65003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
1/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 322

administrative case was resolved on the basis of the complainant’s

evidences, without affording him the opportunity to file a counter-
affidavit and to present his evidence. Petitioner likewise contends
that he was not given access to the records of the subject transaction
vital to his defense and in the preparation of his14 counter-affidavit
despite his verbal requests to the graft investigator.
The respondent
15
OMBUDSMAN denied the motion on February
28, 1994.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant petition basically
reiterating his arguments in his motion for reconsideration.
We gave due course to the petition and required the parties to
submit their respective memoranda.
While the case
16
is pending, petitioner filed a Manifestation on
May 24, 1997 stating that the criminal complaint for estafa and
falsification filed against him based on the same facts or incidents
which gave rise to the administrative case, was dismissed by the
Regional Trial Court on February 24, 1997. With the dismissal of the
criminal case, petitioner manifests that the administrative case
17
can
no longer stand on its own and therefore should be dismissed.
Such manifestation is not well taken.
The dismissal of the criminal case will not foreclose
administrative action filed against petitioner or give him a clean bill
of health in all respects. The Regional Trial Court, in

________________

13 Annex F, p. 66, Rollo.

14 Annex G, pp. 68-72, Rollo.
15 Annex H, pp. 73-75, Rollo.
16 pp. 252-253, Rollo.
17 pp. 254-262, Id.

22

22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ocampo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

dismissing the criminal complaint, was simply saying that the

prosecution was unable to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond
reasonable doubt, a condition sine qua non for conviction. The lack
or absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean an
absence of any evidence whatsoever for there is another class of
evidence which, though insufficient to establish guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, is adequate in civil cases; this is preponderance of
evidence. Then too, there is the “substantial evidence” rule in
administrative proceedings which merely requires such relevant
evidence as18a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. Thus, considering the difference in the quantum of
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001683ffeaa7fc46eca65003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
1/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 322

evidence, as well as the procedure followed and the sanctions

imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings
and conclusions
19
in one should not necessarily be binding on the
other.
Going now to the crux of the controversy, petitioner asserts that
he was denied the opportunity to be heard.
The essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard. One
may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and
perhaps even many times more creditably and practicable than oral
argument, through pleadings. In administrative proceedings,
moreover, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly
applied; administrative due process 20
cannot be fully equated to due
process in its strict judicial sense.
Petitioner has been amply accorded the opportunity to be heard.
He was required to answer the complaint against him. In fact,
petitioner was given considerable length of time to submit his
counter-affidavit. It took more than one year from February 17, 1992
before petitioner was considered to have

________________

18 Office of the Court Administrator vs. Ramon G. Enriquez, 218 SCRA 1 (1993).
19 Office of the Court Administrator vs. Matas, 247 SCRA 9, 22-23 (1995).
20 Concerned Officials of the MWSS vs. Hon. Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez, 240
SCRA 502.

23

VOL. 322, JANUARY 18, 2000 23

Ocampo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

waived his right to file his counter-affidavit and the formal

presentation of the complainant’s evidence was set. The March 17,
1993 order was issued to give the petitioner a last chance to present
his defense, despite the private respondent’s objections. But
petitioner failed to comply with the second order.
Thus, petitioner’s failure to present evidence is solely of his own
making and cannot escape his own remissness by passing the blame
on the graft investigator. While the respondent OMBUDSMAN has
shown forebearance, petitioner has not displayed corresponding
vigilance. He therefore cannot validly claim that his right to due
process was violated. We need only to reiterate that a party who
chooses not to avail of the opportunity
21
to answer the charges cannot
complain of a denial of due process.
Petitioner’s claim that he was not given any notice of the order
declaring him to have waived his right to file his counter-affidavit
and of allowing the private respondent to present evidence ex-parte
is unmeritorious.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001683ffeaa7fc46eca65003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
1/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 322

The orders of respondent OMBUDSMAN requiring petitioner to

submit his counter-affidavit and which was admittedly received by
the latter explicitly contain a warning that if no counter-affidavit was
filed within the given period, a waiver would be considered and the
administrative proceedings shall continue according to the rules.
Thus, respondent OMBUDSMAN need not issue another order
notifying petitioner that he has waived his right to file a counter-
affidavit. In the same way, petitioner need not be notified of the ex-
parte hearing for the reception of private respondent’s evidence. As
such, he could not have been expected to appear at the exparte
hearing.
With regard to the petitioner’s claim that he made requests for the
production of the documents alleged to be material to his defense,
the record is bereft of any proof of such requests. If it were true that
the graft investigator did not act on such

________________

21 Esber vs. Sto. Tomas, 225 SCRA 664.

24

24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ocampo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

requests, petitioner should have filed the proper motion before the
respondent OMBUDSMAN for the production of the documents or
to compel the respondent complainant to produce whatever record
necessary for his defense. Petitioner did not. It was only after the
respondent OMBUDSMAN issued the assailed resolution of
November 18, 1993 that he bewailed the alleged failure of
respondent’s graft investigator to require the production of the
records of the subject transaction.
The record of this case indisputably shows that petitioner is
guilty of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the government when
he failed to remit the payment of the training program conducted by
NIACONSULT. The evidence presented sufficiently established that
petitioner received the payments of ADBN through its
representative, GTZ, Philippines the amount of US $9,600.00 and
that he failed to account this and remit the same to the corporation.
All these acts constitute dishonesty and untrustworthiness.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
The assailed Resolutions of the respondent OMBUDSMAN are
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing and De Leon,

Jr., JJ., concur.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001683ffeaa7fc46eca65003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
1/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 322

Petition denied, resolutions affirmed.

Note.—The essence of due process is the opportunity to be

heard. (Carvajal vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 351 [1997])

——o0o——

25

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001683ffeaa7fc46eca65003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8